If you're such a sharp, on the ball guy, you'd have noted from the picture, as i did, that it's a 5v card.

You have a point. However, that is not the legal standard.

Legally speaking written word takes precedence over a picture.

Let me give you an example. If you have purchased a new car. The owner manual will have many pictures of the car. May be you did get alloy wheels, may be not. I am sure that you will find the pictures differ from the actual product.

The same owners manual will also list the specifications of your car. Horespower, lenght, whatever. If the specs are wrong. The car company has a problem. Just try to google for 1999 Ford Mustang Cobra. They listed their horespower at 400 but the actual number was slightly below that.

Ford wound up recalling all of those cars and they were fixed so they produced the adverstised horespower.

I am sure you have purchased items on the internet where the picture on the website did not match (box redesign, whatever). That is okay.

However, if you paid money for something and it did not meet the written spec, the vendor has a problem (legally speaking).

Vendors routinely use "stock art" to show a picture of their product. Products sometimes do not match the picture. That is okay. Because written spec is what matters. Not picture.

Blue Saturday wrote:

I'm also quite certain that the faq has pointed out that it's a 5v card for as long as i can remember, certainly at least 6 months ago. I think you'd have a very hard time trying to prove intent in a court of law.

First of all, there are a number of felonies that the company and/or the owners can be charged with that do not require intent. For example, truth-in-advertising laws. They do not require intent.

Second, proving legal intent is not nearly as difficult as you think. This is "tv law" speaking.

Let me give you an example. Blockbuster advertised "no late fees". However, they had a big sign that showed when your rental was due by.

They also printed in bold on the reciept that your rental was due on such a date and time. They also made it clear that failure to return the rental will result in late fees.

I can give you other examples of fraud charges. Like Enron executives saying that how could you even expect me to know the accounting regulations? They can fill a small library. And you have to have specialized knowledge (like CPA) just to even understand them properly.

How did I--as Enron executive--intented to break them. I don't even know (or can understand) what they are.

Intent is not that difficult to prove. Intent could be shown by action or inaction.

People have been convicted for murder (requires intent to kill) because they of their inaction (failure to properly secure the animal). If you read the case, the defandant intent was shown because "[the] owner may have been actually aware of the dog's potential danger to human beings".

See the words: "may have been", "potential", "aware". That is the standard under law to prove intent.

By dictionary definition, the person did not intented to commit murder (dog got freed and killed someone). However, by legal definition, he intented for this to happen. Why? Because if he did not intend for a child to die, he should have secured the dog better.

Insurance companies routinely procecute for fraud. All they have to show is a false statement made in connection to some sort of financial transaction (claim).

Intent is a very weak standard. If you think intent will save you. Then you are in deep, deep trouble (and for a rude awakening).

It is kind of ironic, that because the FAQ contained the reference to 5v slot. That could could be shown that they knowingly put up false statements on their website.

Aver says their card requires "Interface: pci slot" and all the website pictures are really tiny but you can see in the PDF that the card is certainly 5 volt! The timerity! It's like they're conspiring against you!

Not saying something is not the same is making a false statement. "Remain silent" does not equal "purgury".

Do you really expect us to believe that you are that incompetant?

Blue Saturday wrote:

think we should line up an attorney and start filing cases. I think there's a lot of money out there in 5 volt tuner cards.

Try not to think. This is not your strong point.

Clearly, you lack even the most rudementary knowledge of the law (or you are just incompetant).

First of all you have to show what false statements they made. Then you will have to show acutal case or controversy. That would would be the minimum to to make prima facie argument in your pleading.

"False statements" would have to be actual false statements. It cannot rely on your incompetance (like the examples above).

"Actual case or controversy" requires that the issue would be real. Not a theoratical one. Courts don't decide theoratical issues. Unless you have purchased that specific product from the vendor while the vendor adverstised false statments. You lack the standing to sue them.

Please try to show a glimse of competance by not posting topics already covered in this thread.

What next. Are you going to cry? Are you going to ask me to leave?

I know, you will find a web page with the words "universal". And out of sheer incompetance, you will present that as "proof". Not even realizing that would not even matter. {Read after "Dell says that this"}

You are either defending fraud, or are just too incompetent to realize it.

-HDTV Buff

Last edited by HDTV buff on Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:35 pm; edited 1 time in total